Appeal No. 1998-2516
Application 08/422,440
examiner. Since appellant never raised these factual
questions with the examiner, we do not have the benefit of
the examiner’s position on these questions of fact. A new
argument advanced in a request for rehearing but not advanced
in the brief or reply brief1 is not properly before the Board
because an argument advanced in such a manner has not afforded
the examiner an opportunity to respond to the new argument.
Note Ex parte Hindersinn, 177 USPQ 78
(Bd. App. 1971). Consequently, we will not consider these new
arguments of fact as a basis for changing our prior decision
in this case.
The only question properly raised by the request for
rehearing is the assertion by appellant that Smith does not
support the Board’s statement that Smith suggests that the
common mode problem in Jove can be solved by connecting the
controllable current sink across the MR element. As noted in
the original decision, Smith specifically refers to the Jove
patent relied on and notes the problem caused by common mode
1 The two reply briefs filed in this case were not
entered by the examiner and, consequently, were not considered
by the Board.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007